(OT) Re: KDE3

[Tim Wunder]

On Wednesday 17 April 2002 05:43 pm, Bob Raymond wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 April 2002 2:47 am, Tim Wunder wrote:
> > On Tuesday 16 April 2002 09:26 pm, Jerry McBride wrote:
> > > On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:01:13 -0400 Tim Wunder <tim at thewunders.org>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > or slower than KDE2x. Running on an AMD Athlon 950 with 384MB RAM
> > >
> > > If you run this stuff on half that iron, you'd notice a difference. :')
> >
> > Yep. I could even run Windows on this box ;-)
>
> Windows is actually faster on my box than KDE, if I consider application
> load times.  Comparison:
>
> rig is Athlon 1.4ghz, 512mb SDRAM, Radeon 8500 video, 40GB 7200RPM drive
> for Windows, 13GB 5400RPM drive for Gentoo (I know it's unfair, but my
> sound card is better supported in Windows, so I need the HD for recording).
>
> Windows XP Pro						Gentoo 1.1a, KDE 3.0
> boots in 30 secs.						boots in 15 secs.
> Mozilla load time 5 secs.				Mozilla load time 10 secs.
> Mozilla mail load time 5 secs.			KMail load time 15 secs.
>

Irrelevant to my point. You can run a modern linux distro on less hardware 
than what I have. In fact, most linux distro's will install on less than half 
the hardware I'm running and will run well. Maybe not KDE3, or KDE2, or 
Gnome. But xfce, enlightnement, blackbox, or even no GUI at all.
If you want a webserver, mail server or even a file and print server for a 
small network, a modern linux distro will handle it far better than Windows 
XP Server on far less hardware.

FWIW, Kmail 1.4 (which is the version supplied with KDE 3.0), starts in 3 
seconds for me. Maybe Gentoo ain't so great after all ;-)

Tim

-- 
Caldera eWorkstation 3.1, kernel 2.4.9, KDE 3.0 from source, Xfree86 4.1.0
  4:00pm  up 14 days, 16:35,  5 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
It's what you learn AFTER you know it all that counts